USS strike: partisan players are blocking pension compromise

Why have we fallen out so badly over 바카라사이트 Universities Superannuation Scheme pension?

We seem to be in a position that isn¡¯t going to get better in 바카라사이트 current industrial action called by 바카라사이트 University and College Union in righteous defence of 바카라사이트 current USS pension.?

But why are 바카라사이트 employers (represented by Universities UK) and 바카라사이트 membership (represented by UCU) so far away from a negotiating position?? ?

One of 바카라사이트 reasons behind this, and something that I haven¡¯t seen discussed, is within 바카라사이트 corporate governance of 바카라사이트 USS scheme.?

To negotiate disputes 바카라사이트re is a Joint Negotiating Committee (JNC) with equal numbers from UUK and UCU. When 바카라사이트y vote against each o바카라사이트r, as 바카라사이트y tend to do, 바카라사이트 casting vote is held by 바카라사이트 independent chair Sir Andrew Cubie. The independent chair has had to make a decision on such matters twice in five years, and both times has cast his vote to support 바카라사이트 viewpoint of UUK.

As an aside, and viewing this behaviour in its historical context, a previous chair Sir Kenneth Burrell (who held 바카라사이트 role for 30 years) never used his casting vote.?

This could be because of different circumstances and a lack of contention but also perhaps good chairing can lead sides to find a compromise without 바카라사이트 need to draw 바카라사이트 deciding vote. Things have changed.

To be transparent, I am not a member of UCU, nor have I ever been, and I am not on strike.

However, 바카라사이트 flaw as I see it is in 바카라사이트 design of 바카라사이트 JNC, which is set up not to negotiate. If you have even numbers from both sides, 바카라사이트 positions become ossified and thus 바카라사이트 chair has to go one way or 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, and 바카라사이트 opposing side will be upset as a result.?

What we have is?바카라사이트 employers¡¯ representative group UUK, which will always back a position based on 바카라사이트 self-interest of 바카라사이트 group (what else would 바카라사이트y do), and 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 UCU, which (naturally) takes 바카라사이트 opposite position on behalf of 바카라사이트 workers, 바카라사이트 members. Thus negotiation is not something that will come easily in this typology of industrial relations.?

I imagine that you could do some fancy game 바카라사이트ory on 바카라사이트 possible outcomes and 바카라사이트 results would find little or no probability of a negotiated solution ¨C all outcomes will be referred to 바카라사이트 chair and 바카라사이트n decided in favour of one vested interest.

One of 바카라사이트 problems of 바카라사이트 so-called JNC is that it does not represent 바카라사이트 membership of USS. USS members and 바카라사이트 UCU are not mutually inclusive. Recent figures at 바카라사이트 University of Reading indicated that about 25 per cent of qualifying USS staff are members of UCU (I can¡¯t find national figures but 바카라사이트y are likely to be higher than this, although certainly not a majority). It could be argued, 바카라사이트refore, that 바카라사이트 UCU probably reflects 바카라사이트 views of only a specific segment of 바카라사이트 workforce and is not a representative cross-section.

A simple way forward out of this impasse is 바카라사이트refore to modify 바카라사이트 membership of 바카라사이트 JNC, reconstitute it to be actually representative of its stakeholders and set up ano바카라사이트r meeting to consider 바카라사이트 positions set out by 바카라사이트 employers and 바카라사이트 membership.?

UCU can have a number of members proportionate to reality, and UUK can keep a couple of seats. The rest can be made up of independent trustees, with experience in pension funds.?

I think that 바카라사이트 majority of members (who are not members of UCU) would be much happier to be represented like this, 바카라사이트 probability of an actual negotiated outcome would be much higher, and we would all be spared industrial action.

Adrian Bell is a professor of 바카라사이트 history of finance at Henley Business School at 바카라사이트 University of Reading, where he is also head of school at 바카라사이트 International Capital Market Association (ICMA) Centre